Feature or a bug? Cannot force numeric evaluation within a function Options  Email this topic  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

Alex M.		#1 Posted : 14 November 2016 02:49:07(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Joined: 03/03/2014(UTC) Posts: 418 Was thanked: 125 time(s) in 96 post(s)		This example should be self explanatory. I expected same output in both cases. Is this a feature or a bug? Caused disaster in my formula logic. Thanks! FunctionBug.sm (8kb) downloaded 15 time(s).
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

	Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your SMath Studio Forum forum account. New Registrations are disabled.

Davide Carpi		#2 Posted : 14 November 2016 03:43:06(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 13/01/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,654 Location: Italy Was thanked: 1340 time(s) in 879 post(s)		Feature You are using pass-by-reference, that assign a value to an input argument when it is the target of an assignment inside the procedure (see here f.e.) the last assignment is missing; to assign the same value both to the result and to the input variable you have to define ID#:eval(ID#+1) even after the loop. Edited by user 14 November 2016 03:56:48(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
		If you like my plugins consider to support SMath Studio buying a plan; to offer me a coffee: paypal.me/dcprojects
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Alex M.		#3 Posted : 14 November 2016 04:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Joined: 03/03/2014(UTC) Posts: 418 Was thanked: 125 time(s) in 96 post(s)		Originally Posted by: Davide Carpi Feature You are using pass-by-reference, that assign a value to an input argument when it is the target of an assignment inside the procedure (see here f.e.) the last assignment is missing; to assign the same value both to the result and to the input variable you have to define ID#:eval(ID#+1) even after the loop. Davide, pass by reference assignment is intentional. What i do not understand is why The result is 56 and not 10 - I used eval() to assign a static value to ID#, or so I thought, but ID# was assigned a dynamic ID# = ID# + 1, which was not the intent.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Jean Giraud		#4 Posted : 14 November 2016 05:20:37(UTC)
Rank: Guest Groups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC) Posts: 6,866 Was thanked: 981 time(s) in 809 post(s)
1 user thanked Jean Giraud for this useful post.		on 14/11/2016(UTC)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mikekaganski		#5 Posted : 14 November 2016 06:53:25(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Joined: 17/01/2013(UTC) Posts: 296 Location: Khabarovsk, Russia Was thanked: 151 time(s) in 107 post(s)		Hey, in first block, you incremented ID by 1 in loop; in second you do it by self-incrementing i!
		Best regards, Mike Kaganski
2 users thanked mikekaganski for this useful post.		on 14/11/2016(UTC),  on 14/11/2016(UTC)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Jean Giraud		#6 Posted : 14 November 2016 08:12:24(UTC)
Rank: Guest Groups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC) Posts: 6,866 Was thanked: 981 time(s) in 809 post(s)		... more conveniently and generalised. Maths SUM.sm (11kb) downloaded 15 time(s).
1 user thanked Jean Giraud for this useful post.		on 14/11/2016(UTC)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Davide Carpi		#7 Posted : 14 November 2016 10:42:09(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 13/01/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,654 Location: Italy Was thanked: 1340 time(s) in 879 post(s)		Originally Posted by: Alex M. Davide, pass by reference assignment is intentional. What i do not understand is why The result is 56 and not 10 - I used eval() to assign a static value to ID#, or so I thought, but ID# was assigned a dynamic ID# = ID# + 1, which was not the intent. Ah! Now I see it. Originally Posted by: mikekaganski Hey, in first block, you incremented ID by 1 in loop; in second you do it by self-incrementing i! This is the cause Edited by user 15 November 2016 01:35:21(UTC)  | Reason: marked as solved
		If you like my plugins consider to support SMath Studio buying a plan; to offer me a coffee: paypal.me/dcprojects
1 user thanked Davide Carpi for this useful post.		on 14/11/2016(UTC)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Alex M.		#8 Posted : 14 November 2016 23:29:37(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Joined: 03/03/2014(UTC) Posts: 418 Was thanked: 125 time(s) in 96 post(s)		Thank you all; so far I understood that something should be clear to me by now, but its not. What can I do to encapsulate a seemingly simple for() loop in a function that produces same result (10)? FunctionBug1.sm (7kb) downloaded 11 time(s).
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

omorr		#9 Posted : 14 November 2016 23:50:23(UTC)
Rank: Administration Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 23/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,740 Was thanked: 318 time(s) in 268 post(s)		Hello Alex M. I just hope that you did not see "1" - one instead if "i" in the loop. Was that the problem or something else? Regards, Radovan
		When Sisyphus climbed to the top of a hill, they said: "Wrong boulder!"
		WWW
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Alex M.		#10 Posted : 15 November 2016 00:06:10(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Joined: 03/03/2014(UTC) Posts: 418 Was thanked: 125 time(s) in 96 post(s)		Originally Posted by: omorr Hello Alex M. I just hope that you did not see "1" - one instead if "i" in the loop. Was that the problem or something else? Regards, Radovan I was blind as a mole. Thanks Edited by user 15 November 2016 21:45:16(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Jean Giraud		#11 Posted : 15 November 2016 08:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest Groups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC) Posts: 6,866 Was thanked: 981 time(s) in 809 post(s)		I'm sure something I don't understand in there, i.e: in what you are trying to do !
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest